Ad blocking was last decade’s big problem, right? It is no longer seen as an existential crisis; it’s become a back burner issue.

Why? Consumer adoption rates seemed to have slowed down. Mitigation solutions like Acceptable Ads and adblock walls took the revenue-hit sting out. A sense of hopelessness set in as many believed that they could achieve nothing more. Other looming crises—like signal loss and traffic loss—took center stage. It became a minor headache, easily ignored by popping an Acceptable Ads-laced aspirin.

Now, are you ready to take the red pill or the blue pill? If you take the blue pill, the story ends. You return to GAM and believe whatever you want to believe. If you take the red pill, you enter the blocked web, and I show you how deep the revenue hole goes.

The Red Pill

Let’s start with a hard fact. The majority of your adblocking audience is invisible to you. It does not appear in dashboards like Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics, or in-house reports. It doesn’t even show up in existing adblocking analytics. Off-grid.  

This is dark traffic. You can’t see it. But it’s very much there. 

We are talking about big numbers here. On average, 14-21% of a publisher’s total audience is uncaptured and unmeasured dark traffic. Put another way, the adblocking audience you are currently measuring is just 20-30% of what is actually there.

Sounds sinister? Yes and no. Dark traffic comprises regular people (not bots) accessing your website. People who buy stuff and have above-average disposable incomes. They are hidden from view because they are using a new generation of adblocking software that makes them undetectable by existing solutions in the marketplace.

This is great because you have an audience you didn’t know about. But it’s bad because it’s unmeasured and, even worse, unmonetized. 

This new generation of adblocking software doesn’t just block analytics. It also blocks or doesn’t permit a bunch of other stuff that publishers have come to rely upon: Acceptable Ads, adblock walls, cookie-banners (CMPs), and in-house promotions (e.g., newsletter sign-ups). Because this new generation is so ruthless, we call them brutal adblockers.

The Cause of Dark Traffic

When folks in the industry talk about “adblockers” today, they refer to browser extensions like AdBlock and Adblock Plus. Owned by a company called eyeo, they became the dominant force that drove mainstream adblocking adoption from 2013-2019. 

These adblockers are known for being somewhat hospitable to publishers, albeit for self-serving reasons. For example, eyeo set up Acceptable Ads, allowing publishers to run analytics, adblock walls, and cookie-banners. For this reason, we refer to them as soft adblockers.

Although soft adblockers have grown in usage, they have dramatically lost market share. In 2015, AdBlock and Adblock Plus commanded 80%+ of adblocked page views online. Today, it’s in the region of 25-30%. Therefore, this is the ratio of your adblocked audience that will see Acceptable Ads.

What generates the other 70%+? You guessed it: brutal adblockers that cause dark traffic. There are now 700m+ users globally. Much of this has materialized in the years since COVID-19—the open web’s inconvenient truth.

Who Are the Brutal Adblockers?

When I talk to publishers about this, one of the questions I get asked is, ‘Who are the brutal adblockers?’ If eyeo via Adblock and Adblock Plus isn’t ruling the roost anymore, who is?

Well, it’s not so much a single who, but many players. The adblocking software market has become fragmented. Many companies are getting a slice of the action, offering adblocking through various types of products (it’s no longer mainly limited to browser extensions). 

Adblocking software is available through built-in browsers, operating system applications, VPNs, and at the network level. Hundreds of providers exist across these categories, with popular examples being AdGuard, uBlock Origin, and Brave. 

Most of these providers are brutal adblockers, having found eager user bases dissatisfied with the approach and limitations of AdBlock and Adblock Plus.

Collectively, they’re an unacknowledged audience.

The Brutal Adblocker Era

It’s time to acknowledge that we are in a new era. An era where the terms of the adblockers themselves have fundamentally changed. eyeo, through AdBlock and Adblock Plus, is no longer the main stakeholder and intermediary to which publishers can reach a value exchange compromise with adblocking users. Nor are other methodologies, like adblock walls, effective if blocked.

It’s time to think about adblocking differently. Publishers should build a direct relationship with users of brutal adblocking software and reintroduce a sustainable monetization mechanism.

Realistically, micropayments and subscriptions aren’t going to work for most publishers. The only viable option is to reintroduce ads, using resilient ad delivery that doesn’t get blocked. Today, it is possible to do this—to restore a publisher’s ad stack to brutal adblocking users with ads that users find agreeable and user-centric.

That may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. As eyeo has proven with Acceptable Ads for its soft adblockers, users do not have binary preferences: ads or no ads. Instead, they are open to seeing non-interruptive ads if those are the terms presented to them.

Brutal adblocking users are no different. There’s a clear distinction between the software and the people using it. One is not reflective of the other. While brutal adblocking software is extreme to the extent of what it blocks on publisher websites, its users are regular people. They’re not fanatics. They’re teachers, accountants, students, and doctors. Sometimes, they are using a brutal adblocker by default (e.g., it runs on their employer’s network), and sometimes, it’s because they can (spoiler: most people would rather not see ads if that’s an option).

Publishers that can directly control the terms of their advertising experience while preserving their readers’ preferences and trust will win.

The post Dark Traffic Is Costing Publishers 14-21% of Their Revenue – What Is It? appeared first on AdMonsters.

In June, we had an exclusive sit-down with Vegard Johnsen, Chief Product Officer at eyeo, who predicted Apple was brewing something big with its Web Eraser feature.

Fast forward to August, and Apple officially introduced Distraction Control — an evolution of the Web Eraser concept that’s already sending ripples through the industry.

What Is Distraction Control?

Distraction Control is not just a fancy pop-up blocker. It’s a user-empowerment tool enabling Safari users the power to hide distracting elements on websites. While Apple carefully distinguishes this feature from traditional ad blockers, the implications are clear: publishers and advertisers must rethink their strategies to survive.

The feature has sparked controversy, especially among publishers who rely on ad revenue and subscription prompts to stay afloat. Apple’s quiet roll-out of Distraction Control in the latest iOS 18 beta is a stark reminder that the tech giant isn’t afraid to shake things up in the name of user experience.

In this follow-up Q&A, Vegard Johnsen returns to share his insights on how Distraction Control could affect publishers, advertisers, and the broader ecosystem. Spoiler alert: this is just the beginning of a new era where user experience reigns supreme, and publishers must evolve — or risk becoming obsolete.

The Revenue Impact: Are Subscription Models at Risk?

Lynne d Johnson: How do you foresee Apple’s Distraction Control feature affecting publishers’ ability to generate revenue, especially those relying on subscription sign-ups and mailing lists?

Vegard Johnsen: Subscription sign-ups, mailing lists, and similar mechanisms to generate revenue are a numbers game. Most users ignore or dismiss these messages most of the time. There have always been incentives to reach the right user at the right time, with the right message. But for the most part, the cost of being lazy was low, so many were lazy, deploying spray-and-pray tactics. Now, with Distraction Control, being lazy is going to get more expensive because users will have more agency in removing these elements.

However, I do imagine that some kind of crowdsourcing of user action is on the roadmap in the future. The obvious way to go with this feature is to offer users to opt-in to crowdsourced feature removal. In that case, the impact could be quite significant since it wouldn’t be limited to just the individual user.

But perhaps this is good news for high-quality content creators who engage with the user respectfully, at the right time, and with the right message. It may lead to these “good” publishers standing out with more signal amongst the noise. Ultimately, there would be fewer bad apples (no pun intended) to spoil the bunch.

Ad Blocker or Not? Understanding the Fine Line

LdJ: Distraction Control has been described as not being an ad blocker. How does this distinction affect the broader ecosystem of online advertising and content monetization?

VJ: One could easily imagine this feature evolving to better cover dynamic content. The biggest reason for that development is simple game theory — there will now be an incentive to make ‘everything’ dynamic (i.e., adding dynamic elements to subscription sign-ups and mailing list prompts).

Striking the Right Balance: User Experience vs. Publisher Needs

LdJ: What balance should be struck between enhancing user experience by removing distracting content and maintaining publishers’ needs to engage users with necessary overlays like cookie consent and subscription prompts?

VJ: That balance has always been necessary, of course, but Distraction Control takes it to a new level. Now users have more choices if they are not happy — not just by bouncing off the site but by also taking control and removing elements. For elements where data is available and timing is discretionary (such as subscription prompts), it becomes extremely important to show the right message at a time that works for the user. Failure to do so may mean the dialog is gone forever.

For other messages where timing and/or data is not available to customize (such as cookie consent notices), one could expect to see pre-messages (such as the ones that often precede the IDFA dialog box) warming up the user. But, perhaps this is also going to spur the industry to move away from dark patterns — from asking for consent for 900 vendors and instead towards asking for a more reasonable number, thereby making the UX more balanced.

For sites to get signals on what direction to take, it would be great to see some kind of feedback feature for the content owner. This feature could share details on what elements are being removed, so publishers can learn what users have issues with and what they don’t.

Industry Response: Adaptation or Resistance?

LdJ: Given the concerns raised by industry associations about similar features in the past, how do you think publishers and advertisers might adapt to or resist this new feature?

VJ: One obvious way the industry might resist is to start adding dynamic elements to messages to avoid ‘detection’ by this feature. But, that kind of cat-and-mouse game would incentivize Apple to make the feature more blunt and powerful, so this is not a good path. Given that, at least for now, the feature requires users to actively remove the content.

So, the reasonable path will be to ensure that the elements on the page stay below the activation threshold. By having a good ratio of content to other elements, and by reducing and avoiding distractions and interruptions, users will have no reason to take action.

The Future of Content Monetization: Evolution or Revolution?

LdJ: What long-term implications do you see for content creators if features like Distraction Control become standard across browsers? Could this lead to new forms of content monetization?

VJ: To me, this is simply an evolution of users taking control of their online experience. They have plenty of options today, from choosing a browser to suit their needs to installing extensions and apps to improve their visual, privacy, and data experience. Browsers are a competitive space, particularly post-DMA, so I would be surprised if other browsers did not follow suit, particularly if this feature proves to be popular with users.

Fundamentally, users are happy to support content creators, but they want the balance to be right. Given that I don’t see the need for new forms of content monetization or any special action by content creators, when it comes to those publishers with a good user experience already, this is something to celebrate.

Rethinking Ad Strategy: Opportunities Amid Challenges

As publishers and advertisers grapple with the implications of Apple’s Distraction Control, the focus must shift toward more user-friendly ad strategies. One effective approach could be reducing intrusive pop-ups in favor of smaller, more subtle placements that integrate seamlessly with the user experience. There’s also potential value in publishers seeking direct buys with advertisers, which can ensure higher quality placements than those typically filled by programmatic platforms.

Interestingly, the need for users to actively hide ads creates a unique opportunity, as those ads might attract more attention offering useful insights into user behavior. Still, the key to thriving this new thorn in your side is to prioritize user experience.

The post What Apple’s Distraction Control Means for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

How do publishers plan to rev up their revenue in the coming years?

Share your insight in our 5-minute survey.

We want to understand where you see the biggest opportunities and challenges in the digital publishing landscape. Your feedback will help us identify key trends, innovative strategies, and potential obstacles in pursuing sustainable growth and profitability.

Let’s uncover where the opportunities are together, as an industry. Your contributions to this survey will help other publishers better understand the industry’s challenges, and learn the strategies to help them sustain, and even thrive. Results will be announced at Publisher Forum Boston, August 4-6.

The post AdMonsters Publisher Pulse Survey: Unlock the Keys to Ramp Up Your Revenue Strategies appeared first on AdMonsters.

WWDC 2024 was a mixed bag for digital media and advertising, delivering promising advancements and unexpected omissions. Apple introduced “Apple Intelligence,” a suite of AI-powered features designed to enhance user experience by leveraging personal context. Highlights included a more intuitive Siri, text-to-emoji generation, and a collaboration with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into Apple devices. These updates promise to transform app interfaces and streamline interactions, offering brands new ways to engage with users.

However, the absence of the rumored Web Eraser feature — an AI-driven tool, leveraging Apple’s language model Ajax, would allow users to erase unwanted web content, from ads and text sections — left many in the industry with bated breath. This feature, expected to debut with iOS 18 for Safari, could significantly impact digital advertising, raising concerns among publishers and advertisers about revenue and content accessibility. Despite its omission, the ad tech world is buzzing with questions and predictions.

Experts like Vegard Johnsen Chief Product Officer at eyeo suggest that similar ad blocking solutions are on the horizon. As Apple continues to prioritize user control and privacy, the industry must prepare for the potential impacts on their digital strategies. In this exclusive Q&A, Johnsen shares his insights on why he believes Apple’s Web Eraser is still on the horizon and what it means for the future of web browsing and digital advertising.

Lynne d Johnson: So, Apple didn’t end up announcing Web Eraser at WWDC and it doesn’t appear to be releasing in iOS18. Can you explain why the industry was so concerned about Web Eraser and what a service like this could mean for publishers?

VJ: Clearly, total ad blocking has been and continues to be a problem for the industry. Most publishers, in particular, small and medium-sized ones, are not in a position to demand a subscription, so total ad blocking leaves them without any good options for revenue.

There are also negative consequences for consumers, since it forces publishers into an adversarial position, putting up barriers (required registrations, etc.) to pay for operations, as well as the content creation that sits at the heart of their businesses. If Web Eraser were to remove those as well (presumably something it might be capable of) then even the conversation about the value exchange is shut down, and we’d be at an impasse.

LdJ: How much do you think the pushback from French publishers and advertisers, as well as UK news outlets, had to do with Apple’s decision to delay this feature?

VJ: It’s common for Apple to have features in beta that they don’t announce for a variety of reasons. Maybe they needed more time in the presentation for other things like Apple Intelligence or the feature just wasn’t quite ready.

Historically Apple tends to stake out a path and stick to it fairly consistently, despite industry concern. We saw this with ITP – they definitely took on feedback and made improvements, but they remained committed to its launch.

LdJ: Given Apple’s Privacy Push in recent years with products like ATT and Hide My Email, amongst other privacy-first features, do you think we can still expect to see a similar service in the near future?

VJ: While Web Eraser isn’t technically a privacy feature, we increasingly see users turning to ad blocking as a key way to help control their privacy online. In general, though, the trend is very much in the direction of features that give users more control over both their privacy and online experience. I would expect to see more of this, not just from Apple, but others as well, like Google, lest it be seen as too far behind (e.g. ITP vs Sandbox).

LdJ: What other ad blocking issues do you think publishers should be concerned about in 2024 and what strategies should they be implementing to mitigate these issues?

VJ: If the user experience continues to deteriorate, ad blocking usage will continue to grow. (Ad blocking has seen an average YoY growth of 30% worldwide since 2011 and there are already almost a billion ad blocking users today.) A significant portion of this usage is actually ad filtering rather than total ad blocking, but it could be seen as indicative of the potential for complete ad blocking to take further hold.

If publishers want to mitigate total ad blocking, they should be looking into user-centric solutions, ones that respect the user experience but can still be monetized. Research has shown that users don’t outright hate ads. They just don’t want to be bombarded with them. In fact, a recent IAB study showed that the overwhelming majority of consumers would react negatively, including being frustrated, disappointed, angry, confused, or sad if they had to start paying for the websites/apps they currently use for free. There is a middle ground for an ad-supported internet, as long as we put the user first.

The post Expert Predicts Apple’s Web Eraser Ad Blocking Tool Is Imminent appeared first on AdMonsters.

In the introduction of this series, I raised the concern that the targeting, measurement and attributions arising in the wake of cookie deprecation won’t meet the consumer’s expectations of privacy. It’s a hugely critical issue, and one worth exploring in depth. This article does just that.

The Rise of the New Tracking Cookie

In the early days of digital advertising, nearly all ads were contextual; Google AdSense assessed web page content and if it matched the topic of an ad creative, Google would fill the impression. The challenge was that contextual targeting back then was rudimentary, leading to horribly embarrassing and often brand-safe placements. A few memorable ones include:

• A “put your feet up” ad for a travel company appeared next to an article titled “Sixth Severed Foot Appears Off Canadian Coast” on CNN.

• VacationsToGo.com banner ad over a photo of a cruise ship that sank in Italy

• Aflac, a service for employee recruitment and whose mascot is a duck and has a tagline of “We’ve got you under our wing” appeared next to a story about anatidaephobia, a disease where people believe they are being watched by a duck.

Marketers naturally wanted better tools for targeting, and deservedly so. By the mid-2000s, Web 2.0 was in full swing, with consumers increasing the amount of time they spent online and on social media, generating vast amounts of data. For marketers, it was the start of the data-driven revolution.

That revolution was powered by private signals, which are any and all signals that are tied to an individual allowing the industry to follow consumers as they go about their digital lives, whether that’s surfing the web, using apps on their mobile device, or streaming content via their smart TVs or radios. 

Initially, the main tracking device was the third-party cookie; little snippets of code dropped into the browser, unbeknownst to the user, so their every move could be logged and their future behavior monetized.

Ad tech companies and agencies retrieved that data from the consumers’ browsers and used it to make assumptions about people: users who visited a parenting site were women aged 25-to-35; users who read about new automobile models are actively in-market for a new car.

Here’s a true story about an American on the Digiseg team: She signed onto her health insurance account to check on something. Later, she saw an ad on Facebook that said something like, “Dr. Smith is in your healthcare network, schedule an appointment today.” This was far from a unique event.

For everyday citizens the message was clear: We’re watching you. For many, installing ad blocking software was an act of desperation. Such software didn’t end tracking, but at least they weren’t reminded of how much they were under the microscope of entities they didn’t know.

Consumers complained, of course. More importantly, they demanded regulators in their home states to end tracking. For the industry, that meant finding a replacement for third-party cookies, but not for tracking users.

But — and it’s a big one — blocking cookies and ceasing the tracking of users in this industry seem to be two different things, though why that is the case is beyond us. Users still emit private signals as they go online, and the industry is still collecting them. Consumers still have no control over the matter, which means brands and ad tech companies still follow them around, whether they like it or not.

The new crop of tracking signals stems from the user’s device or the single consumer, such as hashed emails, and CTV device IDs. Worse, they’re making it more difficult for users to protect their identity from prying eyes. 

Identity Resolution Graphs

Identity resolution graphs are seen as an important step forward in consumer privacy protection, but whether or not they respect a user’s desire for anonymity is up for debate. These databases are built on vast identity signals: email, device ID, cookie data, CTV ID, work computer, home computer, and even physical address. An identity resolution graph connects all known signals to a single ID that typically represents individual consumers.

The benefit of ID graphs is to allow marketers and data companies to “recognize” users across multiple IDs. Let’s say a site invites users to register for a free account and the site collects the user’s email address (i.e. first-party data). Next, the site purchases an ID resolution graph to recognize users when they visit the site via a mobile device or computer from work.

Are there benefits for the user? Yes, because it allows the site to know the user and display content of interest. But wouldn’t it be better to ask the user to sign in or register on the device? Or during the initial registration process, ask permission to recognize them on other devices? This is the type of behavior that got the industry in trouble before. How hard is it to request permission?

In worst-case scenarios, the site allows advertisers or partners to target those users across their devices — without the user’s permission or input.

The Myth of Anonymity

Signals can be anonymized; emails can be hashed, device IDs can be hidden in data clean rooms, but how relevant is that anonymity if the signal can still be used to track users without their permission and for purposes they never agreed to? We forget that cookie data was also “anonymized” but the consumer still complained vociferously about being tracked.

The new private signals don’t even guarantee anonymity. Take hashed emails, which aren’t so private when everyone has the same key. That key allows anyone to recognize a hashed email as a consumer who, say, purchased this dog food or subscribes to this streaming service.

As I mentioned in the first article in this series, this level of tracking is all in pursuit of one-to-one marketing, which itself is a bit of a myth.  

Digital as Mass Media

We’re pursuing a find-and-replace option for cookies, and in doing so, we are ignoring effective and truly privacy-compliant options in front of us: one-to-many ad campaigns. Two of those options include:

Contextual targeting, which has come a long way since the days of Google AdSense. We have numerous AI solutions to help avoid brand unsafe placements, including natural language processing, sentiment analysis and computer vision that can assess the true content of an article, and place ads accordingly. This segmentation method is inherently anonymous, eschews every form of tracking, and can achieve massive scale with the right approach.

Another option is using offline demographic data, that is collected, verified and anonymized by national statistics offices, ensuring it is both accurate and privacy compliant. Going further, with modern modeling and methodology, entire countries can be segmented into neighborhoods of as few as 100 households.

Ultimately, the evolution of digital ad tracking reflects the ongoing tension between technological advancements and privacy concerns. As the ad tech industry continues to innovate, the challenge lies in balancing effective marketing strategies with the imperative to respect user privacy. By embracing more privacy-compliant options such as advanced contextual targeting and offline demographic data, the industry can pave the way for a future where digital advertising is both effective and ethical. As we navigate this new era of surveillance capitalism, the need for transparency, user consent, and robust privacy protections has never been more critical.

The post Surveillance Capitalism 2.0: The New Era of Digital Ad Tracking and Privacy appeared first on AdMonsters.

It almost feels like Brian O’Kelley, CEO and founder of Scope3, just stepped off the operating table. While on stage at Green Media Summit, he openly shared his surgery experience with the audience, not hesitating to discuss his recent ordeal. He reassured the crowd that he felt great, especially considering that it had been only 30 days since his open heart surgery. 

There’s a major commonality between his heart and the ad tech ecosystem. They both have leaky pipes. “Advertising is the lifeblood of the internet,” O’Kelley explained to a packed room. Ad tech is the heart. The role of ad tech is to pump out those ads, just as the heart pumps out blood, but the harder we pump our ad tech heart, the more we damage the system.”

His heart surgery serves as a poignant metaphor for the resilience required in our industry. He shared a memorable moment from his recovery: upon waking up, he asked his doctor what he missed while he was under. The doctor reassured him that he fixed his heart with just three stitches, yet the miracle was in how they opened and closed his heart to make the repair. This story resonated deeply, mirroring the delicate yet transformative challenges we navigate in ad tech.

Like O’Kelley’s surgical repair, many of ad tech’s problems can be solved with just three stitches’ worth of ideas—straightforward solutions to complex challenges. But the real difficulty lies in effectively implementing and executing these great strategies. 

Brian O’Kelley’s Strategies for Repairing the ‘Leaky Pipes’ of Ad Tech

To fix the leaky heart of the internet, two things must be done.

1. Utilize the IAB Tech Lab’s Global Placement ID (GPID) to discuss inventory and enhance precision in ad placements. It’s time to shift the conversation from merely domains to incorporating specific ad placements. The GPID is a consistent identifier across ad tech platforms facilitating this expanded dialogue.
2. Derive a framework for identifying problematic ad placement behaviors. “Ads should render when they are on your screen; they should not render when they are at the bottom of the screen where you can’t see them. They shouldn’t auto-refresh where you can’t see them either,” O’Kelley explained. 

To identify the issue within ad placements, Scope3 conducted a study of about 700,000 instances and discovered that 14.3% of these placements were problematic. This revelation introduces new complexity for the industry, especially as it struggles with issues related to MFA and high-emission sites. 

Scope3 and Sharethrough have responded to the challenge by developing GMP+, a groundbreaking solution integrating placement-level data into Sharethrough’s platform. This innovative approach allows buyers to purchase green media products at the placement level. In addition to features like MFA blocking and high carbon website blocking, GMP+ also enables blocking previously unblockable problematic placements, enhancing control and precision for media buyers. Now available via Sharethrough, GMP+ will help marketers gain more quality with less carbon.

Driving Results Without Being Wasteful 

During an unexpected twist in his keynote, O’Kelley invited Kyle Vidasolo from Omnicon to the stage to provide a buy-side agency perspective. At Omnicon, the focus is on securing the best placements for brands, emphasizing the strategic importance of each placement. Performance is key, and driving those results is critical.

“There’s been no real solution for this, just a bunch of duct tape,” Vidasolo said. “The goal is to fix this once. Running ads that aren’t driving results is wasteful, but guaranteeing outcomes is how you drive results. Agencies take risks for their brands and put the money where their mouth is. So it’s really about honing in on our partnerships with publishers and making sure we drive those results.”

Vidasolo also suggested that purchasing strategies need to evolve beyond traditional CPM models to foster sustainability. It starts with outcome-driven results, but agencies must consider sustainable strategies before investing.

The Future is Green

ROI is as precious as gold. Marketers and agencies will invest where they see the highest returns. It’s about driving effective placements that work better, not harder. Even as publishers, we are all still marketers, we need to create compelling stories that connect and motivate us to take action. We are all interconnected in much deeper ways than the “ad tech craziness” that we convene over, according to O’Kelley. 

A recent Scope3 study revealed that 15% of brand spend goes to MFA sites. Following this, Jounce Media reported that nearly half of MFA traffic in the ecosystem had disappeared. Every bid request on MFA sites wastes advertisers’ money and also results in unnecessary carbon emissions.

O’Kelley emphasized the community’s role in fostering change using its collective power. “The goal is to get the entire industry to recognize that using global placement IDs makes the internet more effective and more green. We will see almost instant adoption,” he concluded. 

The post Scope3 and Sharethrough Partner to Combat Problematic Placements appeared first on AdMonsters.

The advertising ecosystem relies on a delicate balance between user experience, publisher monetization, and advertiser reach. Ads keep the open web free, a reality most consumers recognize and accept. The publisher is responsible for curating user experiences that incorporate ads effectively. When your audience is fed overwhelming or distracting ads, they curtail that experience by using ad blockers or visiting other sites.

And when that happens, publishers lose out on potential revenue. Littering a user’s experience with excessive or disruptive ads is not the key to engagement nor does it create an effective campaign. Publishers who go this route end up producing a bad experience for their users and advertising partners, and they also take a hit on revenue. 

Making the user experience a top priority helps publishers succeed. “When you take the user-centric approach and respect their choices, you build a loyal readership base which leads to a profitable, long-lasting business model,” notes Jan Wittek, Chief Revenue Officer at eyeo. 

Ad Blocking Versus Ad Filtering: It Makes a Difference 

A new survey from Censuswide (on behalf of Ghostery) shows that more than half of Americans (and 912 million people globally) use ad blockers. Ad blockers might improve the user experience, but they can negatively affect many stakeholders in the digital advertising ecosystem.

For publishers, the average desktop adblock rate is 10-40%. The projected cost of ad blocking in 2024 for publishers is $54 billion, which is ~8% of the total projected global digital ad spend of $695 billion, according to eyeo’s 2023 Ad-Filtering Report. Without ad filtering and other mitigation tools this loss could have been as high as $116 billion.

Unlike ad blockers that block all ads, ad filtering technology filters out annoying and disruptive ads, leaving fewer, unobtrusive ads that are more likely to make an impact. Over 300 million web users choose ad filtering rather than ad blocking to ensure a more pleasant online experience. 

This technology, offered by eyeo, powers ad-filtering tools like AdBlock and Adblock Plus, and publisher solutions like Blockthrough. Built in compliance with the Acceptable Ads Standard, the tech empowers real-world users and industry stakeholders to determine which ads are in compliance with the standard based on user research and criteria including quantity, placement, and format. Users who would rather filter ads than block them all can implement AdBlock Plus or AdBlock browser extensions. Blockthrough ensures publishers are only serving compliant ads.

“In a typical ad block environment, the ad blocker stops the ad from running in the first place, which results in the publisher failing to earn any money from that user. But with Blockthrough, we can detect if there’s an ad blocker present and if it’s compliant with Acceptable Ads. If so, we can restore the publisher’s existing demand stack and re-run the ad auction in an ad-filtered environment,” explains Wittek. 

After analyzing each ad for compliance, Blockthrough creates a pool of bids, and the winning bid with the highest CPM is rendered on the publisher’s page. This allows ad tech companies to monetize ad block users without compromising their experience.

Giving Users the Best Experience Online

A recent survey conducted by eyeo and CCM Benchmark shows that many internet users (83%) would be happy to see non-intrusive, relevant ads online. These are younger, more tech-savvy users who understand that ads keep content on the internet free but do not want ads to affect their experience negatively. eyeo’s solutions keep the internet uncluttered for ad-filtering users while giving publishers the opportunity to reach agreeable users to increase engagement and grow revenue. 

“The ad tech ecosystem is made up of users, advertisers, and publishers and the reality is that they all rely on one another. Any time the pendulum swings too far in any direction, it jeopardizes the ecosystem. Ad filtering creates the most mutually beneficial balance between user experience, publisher monetization, and advertiser reach,” says Wittek. This gives users control over their experience and privacy and allows publishers to continue offering free, accessible content.

Currently, 96% of ad-filtering users are actively taking action to protect their privacy online. eyeo focuses on giving users control over their privacy while still supporting high-quality content creators. This provides users with an improved experience while publishers get incremental revenue and advertisers increase views.

Keeping the Internet Free Through Advertising 

Many users understand that the ads they see help to keep the content they access on the internet free, but they do not want to be bombarded with advertisements at every turn. Ad filtering can help achieve the right balance; ads on pages with less clutter are more memorable.

Users want a fair value exchange for seeing ads, with the keyword being “fair,” meaning the ads are unobtrusive, respectful, and relevant. According to eyeo’s 2023 Ad Filtering Report, 79% of ad-filtering users are open to seeing ads that don’t interfere with their content. So, placement matters. Smart publishers are revamping their websites to reduce the number of ads on their pages, not only to increase the speed of the page but to improve their visitors’ ad experience. And, it’s working. They’re seeing higher engagement and increased revenue.

eyeo’s ad-filtering solutions enable user control while serving ads, though these are fewer, less interruptive ads that meet an objective ad standard. According to the company, publishers can uphold a positive user experience while regaining 15-20% of lost pageviews and recurring, incremental revenue. Advertisers benefit too. They realize a higher impact in a less cluttered environment while also building brand trust. It’s a win-win across the ecosystem.

“In the ad tech space, we have the unique position of representing the user by giving them control. We see a huge potential in continuing to educate users and publishers about the online value exchange and how ad filtering can be beneficial to the ecosystem at large. We’re looking forward to more solutions that allow users to exercise choice and control over how and which publishers to support in a simplified way. Ads are a great way to keep the internet free but user-centricity has to be at the forefront when implementing,” Wittek says. 

The post Putting Users in the Driver’s Seat: How Ad Filtering Increases Revenue appeared first on AdMonsters.

Ad blocking may not be seen as big a threat as it was, say, eight years ago when the rise of ad block users was as steep as Canada’s Mount Thor. The topic certainly isn’t living rent-free in publishers’ minds the way the ever-present threat of signal loss is — despite the recent frenzy over YouTube’s ad-blocking crackdown.

Still, it could thwart a publisher’s revenue growth just like the handful of times The Clown Prince of Crime was able to one-up The Dark Knight in DC Comics. (The Joker vs. Batman, get it?) It’s one of those things we can’t imagine ever happening, but still, somehow it does.

The truth is, publishers around the world will lose $54 billion in ad revenue due to ad blocking in 2024, representing around 8% of total global ad spend. If not for ad-filtering tools that enable users to elect being shown only non-intrusive ads, those losses would be notably higher – about $116 billion. These are just some of the key takeaways from the latest Ad Filtering Report from eyeo, formerly known as the PageFair Adblock Report. Read on to learn more…

Ad Blocking on a Steady Incline

Between Q4 2021 and Q2 2023, ad blocking adoption grew 11%, reaching a total of 912M users. While only a slight uptick from Q4 2022, it’s on a steady incline following a significant dip in Q1 2022. During the COVID pandemic, which ushered in the Work From Home era, there was a definite shift in user behavior.

The impact? Desktop ad blocking surged, vying for the top spot over mobile throughout 2022, with mobile taking lead at the end of Q2 2023 claiming over 495M estimated monthly active ad blocking users. That’s just about 25M shy of mobile’s ad blocker heyday between 2020 and 2021.

These increases in ad blocking are interesting given the 2017 plateau when the Better Ads Standards first rolled out. Chrome subsequently started filtering out ads that don’t comply with the Better Ads Standards in 2019, also making tools available to publishers to mitigate negative ad experiences on their properties. Could it be that it’s time to reassess what audiences consider intrusive or annoying ad experiences?

Ad Blocking Users Annoyed With Clutter and Intrusive Ads

There’s no question that understanding your ad-blocking audience is once again paramount, especially as the third-party cookie fades to black. While I know this isn’t the first time you’ll hear this, I’ll say it again for the people in the back: The more you know about your audience, the more relevant you can make their experiences while visiting your properties. You’ll also have a better chance of meeting your advertisers’ KPIs.

“This report shows that users are annoyed with clutter and intrusive online ads and are reclaiming control of their online experience,” said Jan Wittek, CRO, eyeo. “The growth of Acceptable Ads users is a testament to the fact that users are open to nonintrusive ads, thereby supporting publishers and creators for their efforts.  It’s a mistake to assume that they do not respect the value exchange with publishers – if their legitimate need for a better experience is considered. It’s time the entire industry recognizes that user-centricity doesn’t just benefit users, but publishers and advertisers as well.”

Acceptable Ad Users on the Rise

First things first, let’s stop calling them ad blockers and appropriately categorize them as ad filterers. Today’s ad block users don’t hate or block all ads. They understand the value exchange, when it’s clear. They are willing to share their information in exchange for premium content — as long as they can be in control of how their data is used.

The number of users opting into Acceptable Ads, a leading standard for nonintrusive digital ad experiences, has grown by leaps and bounds by 42% between Q1 2022 and Q1 2023, crossing the 300M mark — up from 216M. Overall, Acceptable Ads has an average opt-in of 94% based on the data in the 2023 eyeo Ad Filtering Report. This growth is attributed to the steady incline of ad block users, as well as browser and mobile OEMs adopting the Acceptable Ads Standard.

Of the 58% of users open or neutral to seeing some nonintrusive ads, a majority were open to seeing ads if…

• The ads are relevant — 78%
• The ads are interest-based — 64%
• The ads are nonintrusive — 79%
• They can control what information is shared — 70%
• They can control ad relevance — 65%

Ad Filtering of Tomorrow

The report concludes with predictions for the future of ad filtering, including issues such as the potential impact of AI and machine learning, as well as the consumer perspective and impending regulations on sustainability.

Like many other facets of ad tech, AI and machine learning will have a pronounced impact on ad filtering, making it more robust, sustainable, and scalable.

“ChatGPT and LLMs may seriously disrupt ad tech (as well as other industries). I think in the coming years we’ll see more applications of different AI models to ad filtering. Before that, it was more about experiments that were rarely used by ad blockers, but now the situation will improve,” said Andrey Meshkov, CTO & Co-Founder, AdGuard.

Given that programmatic advertising generates a staggering 215,000 metric tons of carbon emissions monthly across five major economies, media sustainability is another hot topic in ad tech. And, the topic holds meaning for ad block users as well.

Publishers should take note, ad filterers support products that align their businesses with sustainability goals. Seventy-seven percent of surveyed mobile ad-filtering users view companies that take action on sustainability in a positive light, while 42% view filtering ads as an action that reduces their online carbon footprint

You guessed it, ad blocking isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. Publishers were ignoring this elusive audience for quite some time, chalking it up as a lost cause. But now, as publishers are revolutionizing their audience engagement strategies in preparation for the cookieless future, it’s time to rekindle those relationships.

To read the full report and read expert insights, visit eyeo.

The post Ad Blocking Will Be a $54b Publisher Problem in 2024 appeared first on AdMonsters.

On one side generative AI can help a publisher boost SEO rankings by producing SEO-optimized content. On the other, with the technology being baked into search engines, publishers fear it will cut their search-referral traffic.

When it comes to the advertising ecosystem, generative AI is mainly being used on the creative side of the pipeline to generate creative assets at scale and remix and deliver it relative to consumer behavior and interests. For example, using a site visitor’s behavior to rejigger messaging or colors that appear on creative exclusively for them. Both Meta and Google have plans to use the tech in their ads business to pump up ad revenue, and Snap showcased AI-based ads in its My AI chatbot at its NewFronts. 

Now let’s take it back to the sell side of the equation for a moment. What if an ad tech company could figure out a way to enhance their offerings with generative AI to provide publishers with incremental revenue? Well, that’s exactly what Dan Rua, CEO, Admiral, the Visitor Relationship Management (VRM) Company, told me his company is offering publishers through their platform.

He and I discussed how Admiral is implementing GPT to use personalized optimization to generate value exchange messages for publishers to serve their visitors and the importance of using intelligent messaging to drive conversions while building trusted relationships with them. We also talked about privacy and ethical concerns when it comes to generative AI.

What is Visitor Relationship Management?

Lynne d Johnson: First, let’s get the basics out of the way. Can you remind people what VRM is again?

Dan Rua: We were publishers before with a company called Groveshark, which was in the music streaming space. Then we started looking at how to get around ad blockers and drive toward user empowerment and privacy. The existing ad tech industry wasn’t built for that. Ad tech is more about tracking people and shooting ads. And this new way means publishers have to build relationships with their visitors. And that required a new kind of platform, which was less of an ad tech platform and more of a martech or marketing automation platform.

At its heart, that’s what Visitor Relationship Management is. It’s like marketing automation for media publishers. And we help publishers manage the entire journey with their visitors, whether it’s talking about privacy consent or turning an ad blocker off or email capture or registration or donations or subscriptions or social follows or mobile app downloads, or first-party data capture.

Every one of those things is part of the journey. But if you try to cobble it together like a Frankenstein with five different vendors, to pull off those relationships, you’ll shoot yourself in the foot. You benefit from an intelligent journey system that can talk to the visitor about the right thing at the right time and talk to them in the right way based on who they are and where they’re coming from.

GPT Meet VRM

LdJ: And now you guys are making VRM even more personalized lives with the integration of OpenAI’s GPT. How will that work for publishers and help them build more trust with their visitors?

DR: When you think about an intelligent journey system, any one of those asks, whether it’s about adblocking or subscribing, is a value exchange at heart. So first, last year, we implemented AI around when publishers have the most value to exchange — because you don’t always have the same amount of value exchange — any given article at a certain point in time may be more value to exchange.

A good example of this is what we call surge conversions, where the journey can pick up on traffic surges for an article, maybe it’s going viral. That’s an opportunity to ask for a value exchange because you have more value to exchange at that time. You want to realize that in real time and take advantage of that moment. Publishers using that AI system, gain 40% more recovery monthly because a single article spiked and they were able to make the right ask at the right time, to either turn blockers off or get them to subscribe.

And then when GPT rolled in we launched the ability to deploy value exchange messages on the fly. First, we created push button messaging that takes the content of your site and then asks: “What’s the offer?” “Is it a subscription?” “Is it email?” “Is it adblock?” 

It will take the length you want and the sentiment you want, and then after choosing a couple of choices, push the button, and it generates a message on the fly, which is a really solid message. So, now you’re generating that content in a quick and relevant way.

Then, we wanted to drive revenue for publishers, so we layered on that second piece, that automatically generates A/B testing of messages, running them against one another and then getting rid of the worst performer.  Then it auto-generates another message and runs it against the other one, and kicks out the worst performer again, so it’s iterative. It’s A/B testing on the fly, creating variance, and auto-optimizing revenue generation for the publisher. The system auto-optimizes itself.

Journey Intelligence, Your Tool For Combatting Consent Fatigue

LdJ: One of the things I ask everyone in the consent business is what about consent fatigue? It’s a real thing. As people are surfing around the web, they’re seeing popups everywhere. Then, when people have too many choices, they just sort of zone out, which would equate with opting out in this case. What are your thoughts about these challenges?

DR: Even before all of this AI stuff, with journey intelligence, you’re not going to get away from having to talk to visitors and build a relationship with them. This is about user empowerment and giving users control over the environment. You’re not going to be able to hide behind your site and shoot ads at people and it is okay. Publishers who separate themselves from the rest are going to have to talk to visitors. And then, how do you drive the most conversions with the least number of interactions? How can you have an intelligent system to drive the most results with the least necessary conversations? 

That’s how you get this idea of propensity to convert and when do you have the most value to exchange? You need intelligent messaging, because the goal isn’t to hit people over the head with the same message every single time, you want to do it intelligently so that you engage them the least number of times necessary to drive the relationship that you’d like to drive. 

Not to Sound Cliché, but Right Person, Right Message, Right Place, Right Time

LdJ: So with consent, you’re saying the same thing we’ve said about ads for years, that hasn’t always worked — right message, at the right time to the right person in the right place?

DR: Dead on, It’s the same concept. How do you make it relevant to someone? How do you get them at the right time? It’s like that surge example I mentioned earlier. You know that one article out of the thousands on your site will achieve conversions for you and you don’t need to hit people over the head, or across all of your articles. It’s a time when the person has a greater appreciation for your content and it becomes the right time to have that conversation.

But we can even talk about going further in the direction of personalized ads with this. So you’re not just A/B testing messaging, you can change your CTA text or change your CTA colors.

And going back to messages, let’s talk about the level of granularity you can get. You have people coming from Facebook versus coming from Google Search, and you can do the same kind of tests for those referral paths. Or VIPS versus non-VIPs, or brand lovers versus casual. When you start to do that, you have granular personalized optimization based on where they are coming from and what content they consumed previously combined with anything else you might know about them.

Changing the First-party Data Capture Game

LdJ: Sounds like a game changer for first-party data as well.

DR: First-party data is another thing that drove us in this direction. When you get into declared first-party data capture, you’re getting into an infinite number of conversions, right? Like Ford vs Chevy? There are so many opportunities to grow the relationship with visitors that you will want and need a really intelligent system to figure out when and how to talk to people about that.

If you want to know a thousand things about someone, you’re going to need a really intelligent system that builds a conversation with something like a frequency cap built-in in a way that you’re not spooking people out. You might want someone to say yes to privacy consent, and you might want them to turn off their ad blocker and you might want them to subscribe, you can’t talk about all of that stuff today. You have to figure out how to pace that over time.

You don’t have to get married on the first date? You go to dinner and then maybe you go off for a weekend, you need systems that can pull that off with visitor relationship management.

AI Regulation Is Inevitable

LdJ: I’m sure you heard about Italy banning chat GPT over privacy concerns. The EU has this Artificial Intelligence Act. The US is talking about regulating AI in general. Does AI need to be shut down or regulated? Do we need standardization around all of this stuff?

DR: I think we’re just in the infancy days of this whole thing. I think regulation is inevitable. I think lawsuits are inevitable. What does the future hold if the percentage of zero-click searches becomes the majority? Looking at the degree that these engines are learning off of publishers’ content, then you’re going to find yourself in licensing conversations.

I tend to see at least two different aspects of what’s going on with GPT and the Italy example that you used. There’s what the AI can deliver to you for the questions that you ask — the personalization that might be delivered. And then separately, there’s the information being provided to the AI. So it becomes, what’s happening with the data that’s being handed to the AI?

There was a case where Samsung was trying to use AI to better inform their business and they were loading confidential documents in the process. So there’s this question of feeding content and data to an AI and the implications. On the flip side, there’s the output of AI, which has a brighter opportunity while the world tries to figure out how we handle what data is going into the AI to fuel it.

How Else Can Generative AI Generate More Revenue For Pubs?

LdJ: What else do you think generative AI could make possible for pubs, especially when it comes to future-proofing their business?

DR: Readers come to publishers for their content or for their knowledge, which are two different things. There are the individual articles that are written, but then there’s the knowledge that is infused in those articles that readers are getting. There will be publishers that are differentiated by the knowledge that they bring to the world and then there will be publishers that are differentiated by the presentation of knowledge that they deliver.

Every publisher should have an AI brain or an AI agent that has leveraged the knowledge of that publisher and that knowledge is some combination of all of their content. Maybe there’s even some unpublished knowledge that could be part of that agent and their readers could absolutely derive great benefit from that. Imagine reading an article and then the reader could ask, “Whatever happened to so-and-so in that article?” And the system could deliver the rest of the story to you. It can be a knowledge resource that visitors are tapping from you as a publisher. That would give the publisher the ability to keep people on the page.

I am really energized by generative AI that generates revenue. And I get a little nervous that so many use cases are on cost savings. And that immediately runs in the direction of jobs at risk. Publishers themselves, and vendors, need to keep working on ways that generative AI generates revenue, and that can fund jobs.

The post How Generative AI Can Generate Revenue For Pubs With Admiral’s VRM appeared first on AdMonsters.

Others believe it is impossible to monetize adblock users at all, but Blockthrough is asking you to throw away all of those misconceptions. 

Consumers use adblockers because they desire to have an uninterrupted user experience. In addition, consumers believe ad quality has either declined or stayed stagnant. 

That is why the number of adblock users continues to rise. As of last year, there were 290 million people utilizing adblocking tools. Additionally, the monthly adblocking rate has increased from 236 million to 290 million. That is a huge audience segment many publishers and advertisers ignore because they believe their data is trapped behind the adblock wall. But, the truth is quite the opposite. 

We spoke with Marty Krátký-Katz, CEO and Founder of Blockthrough, about the common misconceptions about adblock users, how Acceptable Ads can help you reach the adblocking consumer base, and how to take the responsibility off the consumer. 

Andrew Byrd: You told me that there are a lot of misconceptions about adblock users. Can you elaborate on what those misconceptions are and where do you think they stem from?

Marty Krátký-Katz: The biggest misconception is assuming that all adblock users hate all forms of advertising. It’s easy to hold that belief because it makes intuitive sense. The reality is that users install adblockers for a wide range of reasons, such as to protect their privacy, avoid malware, save bandwidth or device battery, and of course — in some cases, to avoid poor ad experiences.

In recent years, adblocking has largely shifted to ad-filtering, wherein users consent to allow certain types of noninstrusive ad formats to be served to them. This is because for the vast majority of users, using an adblocker signals the desire to have better, safer browsing experience on the web, rather than some kind of ideological opposition to advertising itself.

In our research, this cohort of users has repeatedly demonstrated a nuanced understanding of, and even empathy for, the role that advertising plays in supporting publishers and keeping the web open and freely accessible. According to a 2019 US adblocking report published by eyeo, Blockthrough’s parent company, 71% of surveyed users understand that publishers rely on advertising to keep their content free. We also observe a high degree of willingness from these users to receive a lighter ad experience in order to support their favorite sites and creators.

AB: Your website says that a lot of publishers don’t understand the revenue opportunity associated with addressing adblocking. What advice would you give them?

MK: The first step is always measurement. Publishers need to know what percentage of their visitors use an adblocker, and what percentage of that subset are opted-into receiving a lighter ad experience via Acceptable Ads. This will help in sizing and prioritizing the opportunity.

The most evolved measurement model means having a confident estimate of how much revenue you may be losing to adblocking during a given time period (monthly or annually), taking into account factors such as traffic, ad density, CPMs, and adblock rate.

We do provide adblock detection, reporting, and analytics to publishers free of charge, but they can certainly conduct their own measurement as well. The crucial thing is to know what you’re leaving on the table by not having an adblock mitigation solution in place, especially in times like these when the broader economic outlook is uncertain and global ad spend is muted.

AB: A lot of publishers continue to believe that it is nearly impossible to monetize adblock users, but your company does it every day. How do you do it?

MK: The industry has come a long way since the period between 2015-2016 that some may remember as the ‘adblockcalypse’, when adblocking grew rapidly and there were no sustainable solutions to address the revenue challenge it posed to publishers and media organizations.

Eventually, in response, publishers started putting up barriers between their content and adblock visitors, via a softwall or a hardwall. The problem with this approach is that, if the user disables their adblocker (only a minority do), you end up bombarding them with the same full-throttle ad experience (interstitials, outstream video, animations, etc) that they wanted to avoid in the first place by using an adblocker. Second, it signals to users that the website prioritizes its own financial gain over the user’s satisfaction, which erodes user trust in the publisher’s brand. 

In comparison, Blockthrough’s solution as well as the various solutions from our parent company eyeo rely on Acceptable Ads, a Standard that is adopted by over 250M ad-filtering users globally. Since users provide consent via a participating adblocker, it also eliminates the need for site-level whitelist requests, which they tend to find interruptive and annoying.

AB: Acceptable Ads seem to be a widely adopted solution to reach adblock users. Can you give me a rundown of Acceptable Ads and how adblock users perceive them?

MK: The Acceptable Ads Standard is a set of guidelines that defines what types of online advertisements are deemed acceptable by actual adblock users. The guidelines ensure that ads are not disruptive and do not compromise the user’s privacy or security.

The Standard is maintained by the independent Acceptable Ads Committee, a group of industry experts, publishers, and users who review and update the guidelines on a regular basis. Having a diverse group of stakeholders, which also includes adblock users themselves, both as representatives and the research sample, means that the Committee is designed to always find the optimal balance between user experience and revenue opportunities for publishers.

To the question of how adblock users perceive Acceptable Ads, the answer is that if users perceive certain experiences poorly, they simply don’t pass the inclusion criteria of the Standard. In our research for the 2022 Adblock Report, we found that 82% of adblock users preferred to receive a lighter ad experience by default, instead of being asked to turn off their adblocker.

AB: Your company disproved that desktop adblocking is past its peak as 290M desktop devices were blocking ads by the end of 2021. What does this trend mean for adblock users? Does it reflect their feelings about the typical ad tech user experience?

MK: The idea that desktop adblocking had peaked was first floated in an article by a prominent trade publication, based on industry research and anecdotal commentary provided by stakeholders in the ad tech industry. At the time, our data supported the concept. Adblocking on desktop did seem to enter a period of consolidation between 2016-2020, after four years of rapid growth.

However, in the last two years, that trend seems to have reversed, with the number of monthly active users of adblocking on desktop increasing from 236M to 290M — an increase of approximately 22%. Following the ‘adblockalypse’ years, there was a big push from industry groups, such as IAB with its LEAN framework and Google putting its weight behind the Better Ads Standard, to clean up ad experiences in the hope of slowing the growth of adblocking.

We believe that the revenue threats originating from other sources in recent times, such as the tightening privacy regulations and loss of third-party cookies, have nudged publishers back into their old ways and they are adopting more aggressive ad layouts in order to hedge potential losses. To this point, when we surveyed more than 5,000 US Internet users in 2021, 67% said that they believed that the quality of advertising on the web has either stayed the same or declined.

AB: In our previous chat, you said that when brands try to reach adblock users, the tactics they use tend to put the due diligence on the consumer. What advice would you give to advertisers to put more of the due diligence to reach the adblock audience on themselves? Is that the right way to go?

MK: We think that’s absolutely the right way to go about it. Brands have been slowly losing their audience and reach over the last few years. Adblocking is surprisingly “sticky”, meaning that once a user makes the decision to install an adblocker — they hardly ever go back. Certain brands are disproportionately affected, such as those selling to tech-savvy consumers.

Ad-filtering users comprise a distinctive audience segment that is worth addressing from the perspective of brands and advertisers. Since these users are not inundated by aggressive ad experiences on the web, it actually makes them more likely to notice non-intrusive advertising.

There are a few ways brands can start thinking about this audience. First, to improve their understanding of these users, their motivations and preferences, and how they like to be advertised to, since the default doesn’t work for them. Second, brands should get involved in initiatives such as LEAN, Better Ads Standard, and Acceptable Ads Standard, and consider committing a percentage of their advertising spends towards known non-intrusive formats.

Throughout 2022, we’ve seen brands commit to better understanding the carbon footprint of their buying decisions. We also know that the ad experiences that consumers find most annoying are also bad for the environment, as they consume more computing resources to be delivered. So for brands, this could be an opportunity to achieve multiple objectives: Increase their audience and reach, grow campaign ROI while also meeting their sustainability goals.

The post The Misconceptions of the Adblock User: A Conversation with Blockthrough’s Marty Krátký-Katz appeared first on AdMonsters.